No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always laugh when DCUM posters say their kid didn’t get in because of “yield protection.” They’re basically saying “my kid is too good for the school.”

Yeah. Right.

EXACTLY. So, so transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Name the schools, please. Because I don't believe you.

Of course that’s a big LIE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because the goal is not solely to capture URM. It's to capture the smart, motivated students who do not do as well on tests but will be an asset to that university. For them the data shows they miss out on some great students that would make University X a better place, so they offer TO. In reality, the difference between someone with 1450 and 1580 is minimal. I'd much rather meet them (interview), read about their life (essays) and see their course rigor and GPA and what ECs make them tick. Schools do not want a class of all 1580+ scores. They want a balanced class and recognize the genius of taking the engineering female who also is an amazing artist and managed to balance that along with a sport or some pointy EC and get great GPA as well. They want a kid with drive, motivation and who is interesting and not just checking boxes thru HS. That kid with a 1450 and a high gpa with rigorous course load will do just as well in college and in life as your 1580/4.7. In fact they might do even better, only time will tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT---Test Optional IS the reason your kid got in.

Even with all of that prep they still couldn't get competitive scores and NEVER would have applied, much less gotten in.

Which is why they are so defensive Oh--act and sat are so subjective blah, blah,,,,yet I paid for tutors and test preps and Susie still couldn't crack 50% at top 50 schools.

Actually, the defensive people are the ones insisting scores equate to intellect because they are the ones who have invested in enrichment, whether test specific or no. They want a recipe for admissions, and TO interferes with that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Name the schools, please. Because I don't believe you.

Emory and multiple UC schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

I said I'm not complaining at all - not sure where you are coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because the goal is not solely to capture URM. It's to capture the smart, motivated students who do not do as well on tests but will be an asset to that university. For them the data shows they miss out on some great students that would make University X a better place, so they offer TO. In reality, the difference between someone with 1450 and 1580 is minimal. I'd much rather meet them (interview), read about their life (essays) and see their course rigor and GPA and what ECs make them tick. Schools do not want a class of all 1580+ scores. They want a balanced class and recognize the genius of taking the engineering female who also is an amazing artist and managed to balance that along with a sport or some pointy EC and get great GPA as well. They want a kid with drive, motivation and who is interesting and not just checking boxes thru HS. That kid with a 1450 and a high gpa with rigorous course load will do just as well in college and in life as your 1580/4.7. In fact they might do even better, only time will tell.

It’s to capture the rich white kids who test poorly and can afford essay [help], interview coaching, plus expensive, time-consuming ECs, and most importantly nearly $300K for four years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

I said I'm not complaining at all - not sure where you are coming from?

This same statement gets made week after week on several threads. Weirdly, sometimes even when the context doesn't call for it. I'm starting to think its from a troll farm script?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

Many companies use WPT and their own technical testing. They want to find candidates who are driven, critical thinkers and willing to think outside the box. I know several companies like this. My kid works for one. "avg kid on paper"---1200 SAT, 3.4 College gpa (could be higher but ruined it freshman year before switching majors), no internship due to covid, graduated T100 college. They got multiple interviews at this company until the right position/match was found. I can assure you my kid did NOT answer all questions correctly---far from it. And only 12-14% of people make the cut after taking these test. Been there 2 years, each year has gotten the highest raise of their cohorts (you are grouped with the team you started with for seniority), so in the top 10% of performers each year, put on increasingly more challenging and more leadership positions in the projects.

Meanwhile, Have a friends kids who also applied---kid was NMFinalist, graduated college in 3 years. Really smart kid, very personable, homecoming queen, so smart and friendly and good person. But supposedly she didn't make the testing cut---left things blank on the test (it's a huge no-no---does not show motivation or critical thinking.). Been out of college for a year now, still waitressing, living at home and figuring out what she wants to do, probably grad school but not really sure. So on paper, she statistically runs circles around my kid. She was WL at Stanford.....but my kid is the one working, and excelling at their job. Because work ethic, critical thinking and drive/motivation is what makes you go far in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why schools continue to be test optional when the research shows it doesn’t increase the number of URM students and the data published from the latest CDS’s from most T100 schools show that 30 to 50% of students were admitted test optional and statistically, there are not enough URM‘s to explain this difference? Meaning that the majority of tests optional students got in were non-URM’s.

Because the goal is not solely to capture URM. It's to capture the smart, motivated students who do not do as well on tests but will be an asset to that university. For them the data shows they miss out on some great students that would make University X a better place, so they offer TO. In reality, the difference between someone with 1450 and 1580 is minimal. I'd much rather meet them (interview), read about their life (essays) and see their course rigor and GPA and what ECs make them tick. Schools do not want a class of all 1580+ scores. They want a balanced class and recognize the genius of taking the engineering female who also is an amazing artist and managed to balance that along with a sport or some pointy EC and get great GPA as well. They want a kid with drive, motivation and who is interesting and not just checking boxes thru HS. That kid with a 1450 and a high gpa with rigorous course load will do just as well in college and in life as your 1580/4.7. In fact they might do even better, only time will tell.

It’s to capture the rich white kids who test poorly and can afford essay [help], interview coaching, plus expensive, time-consuming ECs, and most importantly nearly $300K for four years

Where is the lie?

There are 529 plans out there loaded with 200k-400k.

Think of TO has swinging at Piñatas. Colleges already know they are full of treats. They just need to keep swinging until they hit them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

Agreed! Just like I can't give you a job in a deli/butcher shop if you are muslim and are unable to deal with pork/touch pork. It's part of the job description and if you cannot do that, you dont' get the job. Similarly, we do not see persons in a wheelchair working on a construction site because the job requires you to stand for 6-8 hours and lift 60lb+. If you can't do the job description, then that is not the job for you. It doesn't matter why, but an employer can test to make sure you can actually do your job. Likewise, I sure as hell hope the lifeguards at our local pool are given a swimming/lifeguarding test---not too useful to have a lifeguard who can't swim themselves, let alone rescue someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

Ummmmm....the NBA is a for profit business to entertain. If the fans will pay to watch, no one cares about the race of any player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Huh? Are these students just going to not go to college and drop out of the potential work force because they haven't been admitted to a top college?
Lol.
No, they're going to go to other colleges, get educated and they'll do well and learn what they need to learn at the schools they attend. Then they will go on to succeed in the workforce.

You are posting as if their life and their future contribution to society will END if they don't attend a top 15 university.
This thinking is SO WARPED.

No. I am saying that the country's best educational resources should be opened up to the most academically gifted students first. Then to others as space permits because that is better for the country in the long run. Of course these students will do well even if they go to podunk state, but forcing then to go there just because some clueless administrators value "diversity" and want to inefficiently expend a country's scarce resource on less academically gifted students to virtue signal and feel righteous is a terrible social policy

Well the individual colleges feel differently. They feel like they are entitled to select the class of freshman they deem appropriate. Nobody is guaranteed an "elite" education. But there is nothing stopping you (if you are so smart) from getting a great education. Schools do not need to guarantee larlo a spot just because they got a 1600

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

Agreed! Just like I can't give you a job in a deli/butcher shop if you are muslim and are unable to deal with pork/touch pork. It's part of the job description and if you cannot do that, you dont' get the job. Similarly, we do not see persons in a wheelchair working on a construction site because the job requires you to stand for 6-8 hours and lift 60lb+. If you can't do the job description, then that is not the job for you. It doesn't matter why, but an employer can test to make sure you can actually do your job. Likewise, I sure as hell hope the lifeguards at our local pool are given a swimming/lifeguarding test---not too useful to have a lifeguard who can't swim themselves, let alone rescue someone else.

Utter load of crap!

Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector during WWII. His faith prevented him from carrying a weapon. Nevertheless he became a medic and Medal-of-Honor recipient. Look him up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss